I am not the well-respected and esteemed ATS member Phage...but, this sort of misinformation MUST be squelched as soon as it is posted,
regardless:

Yes, once the aerosols sink to that level in the sky, they then imitate stratus clouds.

Sorry but.....huh?

This is the type of nonsense that is anathema to "denying ignorance".

There is little else to say, except....PLEASE go take some course of study in meteorology....else, you just will continue to embarrass yourself,
online.....it is YOUR choice to willingly make, of course.....

...but, if you care little about your online reputation for credibility and veracity? Well then....carry on in the ignorant posts. Those of us who
know better will continue to subject any false assertions to the crucible of fact and truth......

The more debunkers of chemtrails, that appear,
make me more of a believer everyday as I watch.
If chemtrails were false there would not be so many trying prove it is.
Its like a gang attacking a man on the street with a sign that says
The End Is Near.
If the end was not near everyone would walk on by and ignore him.
But if the end is near and needs to be suppressed, then I could understand
the need to get the sign away from the man and off the street to avert panic.

Stephen Schwartz knows as much about the effects of aerosols on climate change as anyone in the world, and he's worried. He believes climate
change is so massive an economic issue that we face costs "in the trillions if not quadrillions of dollars." He thinks a Herculean effort and great
sacrifice is required to get the world down to zero net increase in carbon dioxide concentrations, an effort he compares to that which the Allies
undertook in their all-out war against Nazi Germany and Japan.

"Recall World War II, where everyone was making a sacrifice: gas rationing, tire rationing, no new car production, food rationing," he explains. "I
don't think the people of the world are ready or prepared to make such a level of personal sacrifice. Perhaps when the consequences of climate change
become more apparent that will change. But by that time, there will be irreversible changes in climate."

Few scientists speak with more conviction, or lay out the potential consequences of inaction more starkly. Yet Stephen Schwartz, senior scientist at
Brookhaven National Laboratory, chief scientist of the Atmospheric Science Program of the United Stated Department of Energy, and author of the study
some credit with spurring acid rain legislation in the 1990s, is also Al Gore's worst nightmare. He knows the science on global warming is not
settled, as Gore claims. He knows society has antidotes to carbon dioxide -- aerosols -- that could postpone the day of reckoning far into the future.
And although he dreads a reliance on the aerosols, he knows respected scientists are pursuing aerosol-abatement strategies, and that they could be
cost effective and environmentally benign.

Aerosols are liquid or solid substances suspended in air. Many aerosols, such as those associated with cloud formation or those that stem from
volcanic emissions, occur naturally. Others, such as emissions from automobiles, smokestacks and coal plants, come of industrial activity.

We know a lot about the carbon dioxide that comes of fossil fuel burning. But we know relatively little about the aerosols that industrial activity
produces simultaneously. What we do know will surprise many people: The aerosols act as cooling agents, counteracting the warming effect of the carbon
dioxide. Every lump of coal, in effect, contains a store of substances, some of which warm, some of which cool, the atmosphere.

Dr. Schwartz thinks he has a good handle on the degree of warming that comes of carbon dioxide. Here the science is fairly straightforward, he says,
because we know how much carbon dioxide enters the atmosphere, we know how long it stays there -- 100 years -- and we know its distribution is fairly
uniform globally.

But he doesn't know how much cooling aerosols provide -- the uncertainty surrounding aerosols' cooling properties has long been a dominant mystery
in the climate change field. He can say the amount of cooling is very substantial, likely offsetting most of the carbon dioxide the planet produces,
and possibly much, much more -- the uncertainty is that great. Conceivably, aerosols are so effective at cooling that humans could double the amount
of coal, oil and natural gas we burn and find that aerosols entirely negate the warming for centuries to come.

Getting a handle on how much cooling comes of aerosols is daunting in the extreme. The aerosols come from literally billions of sources producing
aerosol precursors that are oxidized in the atmosphere at varying rates, depending on their photochemical surroundings, which are themselves highly
variable in space and time. Not only do the myriad aerosols vary in size and composition, they act differently depending on their sources, they
interact unpredictably, and they are replaced every week with new generations of aerosols.

With enough time and money -- at least a decade if this area of research becomes fully funded -- research by Dr. Schwartz and others might make
demonstrable headway in reducing the uncertainty surrounding aerosols' cooling properties. More likely several decades will be needed, because those
who hold the purse strings have refused to see the paramountcy of this area of research. Although the work that needs to be funded on aerosols was
spelled out in a 1996 National Academy of Sciences report, Dr. Schwartz laments, "the funding agencies have essentially ignored the urgent needs that
the report spelled out."

As a result, the science in this potentially decisive area of climate change remains undone, and the state of the knowledge has made precious little
advance. Without knowing the extent of cooling from aerosols, we can't know the extent of warming that threatens the Earth.

But no amount of funding for research can solve another mystery concerning aerosols, a mystery that is entirely unknowable, and one that may make
the uncertainty over aerosols' cooling properties dwarf in importance. Knowing the future of aerosols requires having a crystal ball that can tell us
what the global economy -- and its production of aerosols -- will look like decades or centuries hence.

The ability of aerosols to counteract the warming from man-made carbon dioxide will continue as long as aerosols increase their presence in the
atmosphere at an exponential rate, Dr. Schwartz explains. This exponential rate has existed to date, as the historic record demonstrates. But
eventually, Dr. Schwartz believes, for some reason or another aerosols will stop growing at an exponential rate, and when this occurs, the global
warming threat could hit us with full force.

Or, with aerosols as an artificial remedy, it could not.

Aerosols do not need to be produced as a byproduct of industrial activity. They could be manufactured specifically to counteract greenhouse gases, for
example via aerosol-producing wind-driven generators that would artificially brighten marine stratus clouds, an option that Dr. Schwartz thinks is
likely to be environmentally benign.

These aerosol generators -- human-controlled global thermostats -- might give society the ability to offset the negative effects from carbon dioxide
production. The issue would then not be environmental so much as economic, the choice being to abate carbon dioxide via a Kyoto-type treaty in order
to bring down carbon dioxide levels, or to abate carbon dioxide's warming effects via environmentally benign aerosols. Faced with this choice,
society may well be better off burning fossil fuels so as to maximize economic growth, and then using part of the increased wealth for future aerosol
production, should it prove necessary.

"I think a strong argument can be made along those lines," Dr. Schwartz acknowledges, although he thinks the more prudent course lies in cutting
carbon dioxide emissions today, rather than postponing the inevitable. That argument -- whether the pain of going onto a war footing today is worth
the future gain -- ultimately belongs in a non-scientific forum, not with him. "My job as a scientist is to do the research upon which sound policies
can be based. Once we have the research, society can make an informed decision."

- Lawrence Solomon is managing director of Energy Probe Research Foundation and executive director of its Urban Renaissance Institute.

www.urban-renaissance.org
LarrySolomon@nextcity.com

CV OF A DENIER

Stephen Schwartz, an award-winning scientist at Brookhaven National Laboratories, is author or co-author of some 340 journal articles, proceedings,
reports and reviews. He received his PhD from the University of California, Berkeley. Dr. Schwartz is a Fellow of the American Geophysical Union and
of the American Association for the Advancement of Science.

Here's another site where he explains the his interest in aerosols and how they can be used to force climate change.
www.ecd.bnl.gov...

Exactly - using this as evidence that this proves that chemtrails are real and geo-engineering is happening is a total misrepresentation - go and
actually read about what he says he MIGHT be able to to.....

White roof methods and brightening of human settlements The purpose is to increase the reflectivity of the built environment by painting roofs, roads
and pavements bright reflective "white". This would be most effective in sunny regions and during summertime where there might also be co-benefits
through savings in air-conditioning.[40]

More reflective crop varieties and grasslands Land plants tend to absorb strongly in the visible photosynthetically active part of the solar spectrum,
but are highly reflective in the near infrared frequencies. However, the albedo of plant canopies can vary significantly between different plant types
and varieties, due to differences in basic leaf spectral properties, morphology and canopy structure. It may therefore be possible to increase
significantly the albedo of vegetated surfaces through careful choice of crop and grassland species and varieties.[41]

Cloud Albedo It has been proposed that the Earth could be cooled by whitening clouds over parts of the ocean.[42]

Aerosol injection Large volcano eruptions result in the mass injection of sulphate particles—formed from the emitted sulphur dioxide—into the
stratosphere. As these aerosols reflect solar radiation back to space, or themselves absorb heat, mass eruptions result in a cooling of the lower
atmosphere. The eruption of Mount Tambora in present day Indonesia, for example, was thought to have produced the "year without a summer" in 1816.
In the 1970s, Professor Budyko proposed that "artificial volcanoes" be geoengineered. That is, that sulphate aerosols be injected into the
stratosphere to mimic the cooling effect caused by these "super-eruptions".[43]

Space mirrors Positioning a superfine reflective mesh of aluminium threads in space between the Earth and the Sun was proposed in 1997 by Dr Lowell
Wood and Professor Edward Teller to reduce the amount of sunlight that reaches the Earth. It has been estimated that a 1% reduction in solar radiation
would require approximately 1.5 million square kilometres of mirrors made of a reflective mesh.[44]

We conclude that geoengineering techniques should be graded according to factors such as trans-boundary effect, the dispersal of potentially
hazardous materials in the environment and the direct effect on ecosystems. The regulatory regimes for geoengineering should then be tailored
accordingly. Those techniques scoring low against the criteria should be subject to no additional regulation to that already in place, while those
scoring high would be subject to additional controls. So for example, at the low end of the scale are artificial trees and at the high end is the
release of large quantities of aerosols into the atmosphere.

Then this is proof that all of those methods are in use? White roofs, selective crops, cloud whitening, aerosol injection, space mirrors?

So you claim that a document which says this is "proof" that geoengineering is underway? A statement that a means of regulation need to be in place
before any action is taken:

We are clear that serious consideration for the regulatory arrangements for
geoengineering needs to start now, not once highly disruptive climate change is under
way.

Oh, did you notice this:

At the oral evidence session we asked whether weather-changing techniques such as
cloud seeding should be considered to be geoengineering. Mr Virgoe, Dr Blackstock and
Professor Keith were clear that they should not.61 Mr Virgoe considered that “one of the
criteria [...] for geoengineering is that the effect needs to be at a global level, and cloud
seeding is a weather modification technique.”62 Weather modifications such as cloud
seeding which affect the weather for no longer than a season, in our view, do not fall within
the definition of geoengineering. Moreover, these techniques are regulated by international
conventions, ENMOD and UNFCCC.

How about this:

We recommend that the Government give greater priority to public engagement on
geoengineering by, for example, showing how it relates to its policy on the reduction
of carbon dioxide emissions. We welcome the work of Natural Environment
Research Council (NERC) on public engagement on geoengineering and we request
that, when the work is completed, the Government provide our successor committee
with an explanation of how it will inform its policy on geoengineering. (Paragraph
58)

Of everything I've submitted as proof, once it's all combined, I'm convinced that the governments of the world are serious about controlling our
environment with these types of methods.
I'm also convinced that they're already in use.
Considering many of the documents I've looked at want greenhouse gases under control by 2020-2030, these methods should be in action today if
they're going to reach their goal..
We already see how school buses have been painted with white roofs several years ago.

If you and the dancing chicken don't believe that these methods are being enforced today, that's your opinion.
I believe they are being employed and abundantly.
Why do you care that I have my mind made up? I believe that they are using geoengineering right now. You aren't going to change my mind. If you want
to try, start posting some articles and papers that document that these methods aren't being used.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.